Cargando…

Conventional single-chamber pacemakers versus transcatheter pacing systems in a “real world” cohort of patients: A comparative prospective single-center study

PURPOSE: Despite the developments in conventional transvenous pacemakers (VVI-PM), the procedure is still associated with significant complications. Although there are no prospective clinical trials that compared VVI-PM with transcatheter pacemaker systems (TPS). METHODS: This is a prospective, obse...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martinez-Sande, Jose Luis, Garcia-Seara, Javier, Gonzalez-Melchor, Laila, Rodriguez-Mañero, Moises, Baluja, Aurora, Fernandez-Lopez, Xesus Alberte, Gonzalez Juanatey, Jose Ramon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7952774/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33418071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2020.12.004
_version_ 1783663803506884608
author Martinez-Sande, Jose Luis
Garcia-Seara, Javier
Gonzalez-Melchor, Laila
Rodriguez-Mañero, Moises
Baluja, Aurora
Fernandez-Lopez, Xesus Alberte
Gonzalez Juanatey, Jose Ramon
author_facet Martinez-Sande, Jose Luis
Garcia-Seara, Javier
Gonzalez-Melchor, Laila
Rodriguez-Mañero, Moises
Baluja, Aurora
Fernandez-Lopez, Xesus Alberte
Gonzalez Juanatey, Jose Ramon
author_sort Martinez-Sande, Jose Luis
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Despite the developments in conventional transvenous pacemakers (VVI-PM), the procedure is still associated with significant complications. Although there are no prospective clinical trials that compared VVI-PM with transcatheter pacemaker systems (TPS). METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, single-center study that included all patients with an indication for a single-chamber pacemaker implant within a 4-year period. All clinical, ECG and echocardiographic characteristics at implant, electrical parameters, associated complications and mortality were analyzed. A Cox survival model and a Bayesian cohort analysis were performed for differences in complication rates between groups. RESULTS: There were 443 patients included (198 TPS and 245 VVI-PM). The mean age was 81.5 years (TPS group, 79.2 ± 6.6 years; VVI-PM group, 83.5 ± 8.9 years). There was a male predominance in TPS group (123, 62.1% vs. 67, 27.3%; p < 0.001). The presence of systolic dysfunction and renal insufficiency were more frequent in VVI-PM group than in TPS patients. Mean follow-up was 22.3 ± 15.9 months. In a multivariable paired data the TPS group presented fewer complications than VVI-PM group (HR = 0.39 [0.15–0.98], p-value 0.013), but major complications were not different (6, 3% vs 14, 5.6% respectively, p = 0.1761). There was no difference in the mortality rate between the groups. The TPS group had less risk than VVI-PM group to have a complication, with a 96% of probability. CONCLUSIONS: TPS patients had a lower overall complication rate than VVI-PM patients including matched-pair samples using a Bayesian analysis. These results confirm the safety profile of TPS in clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7952774
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79527742021-03-17 Conventional single-chamber pacemakers versus transcatheter pacing systems in a “real world” cohort of patients: A comparative prospective single-center study Martinez-Sande, Jose Luis Garcia-Seara, Javier Gonzalez-Melchor, Laila Rodriguez-Mañero, Moises Baluja, Aurora Fernandez-Lopez, Xesus Alberte Gonzalez Juanatey, Jose Ramon Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J Original Article PURPOSE: Despite the developments in conventional transvenous pacemakers (VVI-PM), the procedure is still associated with significant complications. Although there are no prospective clinical trials that compared VVI-PM with transcatheter pacemaker systems (TPS). METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, single-center study that included all patients with an indication for a single-chamber pacemaker implant within a 4-year period. All clinical, ECG and echocardiographic characteristics at implant, electrical parameters, associated complications and mortality were analyzed. A Cox survival model and a Bayesian cohort analysis were performed for differences in complication rates between groups. RESULTS: There were 443 patients included (198 TPS and 245 VVI-PM). The mean age was 81.5 years (TPS group, 79.2 ± 6.6 years; VVI-PM group, 83.5 ± 8.9 years). There was a male predominance in TPS group (123, 62.1% vs. 67, 27.3%; p < 0.001). The presence of systolic dysfunction and renal insufficiency were more frequent in VVI-PM group than in TPS patients. Mean follow-up was 22.3 ± 15.9 months. In a multivariable paired data the TPS group presented fewer complications than VVI-PM group (HR = 0.39 [0.15–0.98], p-value 0.013), but major complications were not different (6, 3% vs 14, 5.6% respectively, p = 0.1761). There was no difference in the mortality rate between the groups. The TPS group had less risk than VVI-PM group to have a complication, with a 96% of probability. CONCLUSIONS: TPS patients had a lower overall complication rate than VVI-PM patients including matched-pair samples using a Bayesian analysis. These results confirm the safety profile of TPS in clinical practice. Elsevier 2021-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7952774/ /pubmed/33418071 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2020.12.004 Text en © 2021 Indian Heart Rhythm Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Martinez-Sande, Jose Luis
Garcia-Seara, Javier
Gonzalez-Melchor, Laila
Rodriguez-Mañero, Moises
Baluja, Aurora
Fernandez-Lopez, Xesus Alberte
Gonzalez Juanatey, Jose Ramon
Conventional single-chamber pacemakers versus transcatheter pacing systems in a “real world” cohort of patients: A comparative prospective single-center study
title Conventional single-chamber pacemakers versus transcatheter pacing systems in a “real world” cohort of patients: A comparative prospective single-center study
title_full Conventional single-chamber pacemakers versus transcatheter pacing systems in a “real world” cohort of patients: A comparative prospective single-center study
title_fullStr Conventional single-chamber pacemakers versus transcatheter pacing systems in a “real world” cohort of patients: A comparative prospective single-center study
title_full_unstemmed Conventional single-chamber pacemakers versus transcatheter pacing systems in a “real world” cohort of patients: A comparative prospective single-center study
title_short Conventional single-chamber pacemakers versus transcatheter pacing systems in a “real world” cohort of patients: A comparative prospective single-center study
title_sort conventional single-chamber pacemakers versus transcatheter pacing systems in a “real world” cohort of patients: a comparative prospective single-center study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7952774/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33418071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipej.2020.12.004
work_keys_str_mv AT martinezsandejoseluis conventionalsinglechamberpacemakersversustranscatheterpacingsystemsinarealworldcohortofpatientsacomparativeprospectivesinglecenterstudy
AT garciasearajavier conventionalsinglechamberpacemakersversustranscatheterpacingsystemsinarealworldcohortofpatientsacomparativeprospectivesinglecenterstudy
AT gonzalezmelchorlaila conventionalsinglechamberpacemakersversustranscatheterpacingsystemsinarealworldcohortofpatientsacomparativeprospectivesinglecenterstudy
AT rodriguezmaneromoises conventionalsinglechamberpacemakersversustranscatheterpacingsystemsinarealworldcohortofpatientsacomparativeprospectivesinglecenterstudy
AT balujaaurora conventionalsinglechamberpacemakersversustranscatheterpacingsystemsinarealworldcohortofpatientsacomparativeprospectivesinglecenterstudy
AT fernandezlopezxesusalberte conventionalsinglechamberpacemakersversustranscatheterpacingsystemsinarealworldcohortofpatientsacomparativeprospectivesinglecenterstudy
AT gonzalezjuanateyjoseramon conventionalsinglechamberpacemakersversustranscatheterpacingsystemsinarealworldcohortofpatientsacomparativeprospectivesinglecenterstudy